Madras High Court
Daya Baran vs The State Rep. By on 3 August, 2021
H.C.P.No.SR 23735 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 03.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
H.C.P.No.SR 23735 of 2021
Daya Baran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State rep. by
The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal
2.The Inspector of Police
Paramathi Police Station
Paramathi Vellore
Namakkal District
3.P.Sekar .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the respondent police 1
and 2 to produce the detenue Ms.Priyanka, aged 26 years either in body or
person before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Romeo Roy Alfred
for Ms.S.Valarmathi
For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.SR 23735 of 2021
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
It is the case of the petitioner that he was in love with one Priyanka
since 2012 and that she is being kept under illegal detention by her parents.
2. The Registry entertained doubt about the very maintainability of
this petition, since, even according to the petitioner, he was not married to
Priyanka and was only in love with her. Therefore, this matter is posted
before us “for maintainability”.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the
order dated 17.04.2018 passed by this Court in H.C.P.No.426 of 2018,
wherein, in paragraph 10, it is held as follows :
“10.Firstly, let us go into the maintainability aspect. A petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable, if the Court
is satisfied that there is an improper restraint placed on the alleged
detenue. In such an event, the question of locus need not be given
undue importance. Secondly, in the instant case, the detenue
categorically in an unequivocal terms stated that she was kept in
confinement by her parents forcibly against her wishes. While
discussing on this, the point for consideration, focuses on the
contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent. His
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.SR 23735 of 2021
contention is that an adult major woman in the custody of the parents
even against her wishes would not tantamount to justify the invocation
of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. His contention
is centered around the supremacy of the parental authority and relied on
the decision of Lal parameswar V. Ullas N.N. reported in 2014 SCC
Online Kerala 4170 : 2014 Cri LJ 192.”
The learned counsel further contended that one of the relatives of Priyanka
is in police department and that with his influence, she is kept under illegal
detention.
4. Even in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is seen that a writ of habeas corpus can be maintained only, if
the Court is satisfied that there is an improper restraint placed on the alleged
detenue. In the case in hand, except the ipse dixit of the petitioner, there is
no other material placed before us like any communication from Priyanka
that she is under illegal detention for us to act upon. Hence, this petition is
dismissed as not maintainable.
[P.N.P., J.] [R.N.M., J.]
03.08.2021
gya
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.SR 23735 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gya
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal
2.The Inspector of Police
Paramathi Police Station
Paramathi Vellore
Namakkal District
H.C.P.No.SR 23735 of 2021
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
03.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
